Depends on the dimension used. « Shoulds » are meaningless. Let’s not assume everyone is doing shit work, awareness is getting there and people are getting more capable to correctly classify data. Anyway assuming correct classification there are techniques that changes classification enough to allow exportation of data to shit countries.

There’s plenty of techniques to avoid re-identification… aggregation isn’t the only way. Especially considering that aggregation if using a stupid dimension isn’t helping at all…

It’s never been illegal at all, you’re oversimplifying the issue. Plenty of use cases that can use US clouds. Not all data is PII and plenty of use cases perform fine by anonymising their data. Also EU countries aren’t that better than US when it comes to state issued privacy violations; we just don’t do dragnet bullshit (yet) but plenty of requests are served as requested…

I can understand being fine with a nomination that aligns with his personal interests but from there the journey to « party of small people » likely takes a convoluted path.

Like with all emerging technologies let’s wait for jurisprudence on those… though in europe we generally frown upon anything firearms I guess there will be some interesting evolutions with drones.

As platforms they open too many possibilities and a rather constraining framework is already preventing their operation unless you have a license… which could become more of an access barrier if abuses become more prevalent.

Anecdotally I have seen first hand in 2 occasions unlicensed operators getting caught and largely fined; which was in the end more expensive that having the little drone shot.

Anyway having references that broadly seem to offer protection to drone operators isn’t necessarily a good news even where gun maniacs aren’t plentiful.

You’re not fucking Gandalf, stop answering questions by more questions.

Good to know and very unfortunate that it’s labelled as such by op… sooooo in the end we don’t care about TFA?

This; « complies with most of the current human health guideline values set by various authorities in the EU, even with a high daily consumption of 2 litres » for someone not professionally involved means « is ok ». The authorities in the EU literally say « it complies ».

There are additional limits but from what I can read those re precautions not necessarily coming from health guidelines but from other sciences. Most likely very welcomed precautions though but it still says « complies today ».

Also you are avoiding my main concern which is « then what should I do? ».

We can play semantics the whole afternoon and in the end I agree with the idea that unwanted chemicals must be removed from my food & drinks; but then what? We stop drinking ?

Still, from the article; « Additionally, mineral water is less contaminated with TFA than tap water on average. »

Sooooo… maybe it is more regulated but tests seems to indicate that it’s still more contaminated -in general.

Nope, nothing of the sort. I’m just wondering why the tone of the message from the guardian isn’t in line with the source it cites. They literally say « is ok » so what should be the take away?

Limits are too loose? If so what are good limits to look for? Is it a call to drop bottled water? But then what about city water which isn’t measured as far as I can read; is it better? (I doubt given late incidents in Belgium where water tables were contaminated by local industries).

So what can I do? I’m growing incredibly tired of drama for which nothing can be done at my level.

Taken from like the 3 rd link in the guardian article and it leads to this page; https://www.pan-europe.info/resources/briefings/2024/12/tfa-‘forever-chemical’-european-mineral-waters?utm_source=Laposta&utm_campaign=Press+Release+32&utm_medium=email

I’m starting to doubt my reading capabilities. I went through the source and what I read was « Nevertheless, each of the mineral waters tested - even the one with the highest measured contamination of 3,200 ng/l - complies with most of the current human health guideline values set by various authorities in the EU ».

So it is contaminated but within acceptable limits. Traces beside a few brands that have larger traces still within those limits.

That on top with the fact that it seems to only be about bottled water which, at least in Belgium, is neither necessary nor that popular around me, makes me wonder what’s the call to action here.

How sad is it when gaming companies first advertise to their shareholders before the gamers…

But some currencies are backed by countries with armies and such deterrents. Not so many countries currently backing crypto I guess.

Or architects, infrastructure engineer… plenty of peripheral functions are hired as « IT engineers » and not pushing code in a repo. What a weird article.

What a wonderful way to put it.

The real surprise for me is how little the battery of my iphone holds. Especially compared to my ev6 or what my heat pump guzzles daily. Crazy.

Sounds to me you kind of need both. Let’s take reddit :) as an example ; On one hand you could register it as a platform but then you’d need something to index the posts themselves so that you get relevant results for on-plateform content. Not everything needs to be a hammer :)

Maybe we could stop giving a platform to the crazies that foster those stories. Both of them; the idiots that see ai artefacts everywhere but also the fear mongers of the sort of the blog here. It reminds me of « be afraid of rpgs » in the 80ies and then « videos games are going to turn teens in murderers » in the 90ies… every new tech has curves for their maturity, cultural & societal fit. We just so happen to be at the shitty times for ai. But eventually the fad will go away, most crazies will move to something else and attention whores will also find a new niche.

The difference in addictiveness of sugar compared to alcohol and tobacco is largely discussed isn’t it? I can’t source it but I read something about that. It’s more that our society is culturally more accepting of sugar than it should…